Published AAO appeal decisions

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

Doctoral candidate researcher in material chemistry sought EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected original contributions, finding no evidence of major significance impact. Appeal dismissed; threshold of three criteria not satisfied.

Insurance CEO sought EB-1A classification. Met two criteria: published material and judging. Claimed awards, membership, and original contributions but AAO rejected all three due to insufficient evidence of national or international recognition and exceptional achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Pole dance instructor and performer petitioned for O-1A classification through talent agency. AAO held beneficiary did not meet evidentiary criteria: competition awards lacked significance in field, no published material in major media, and prior performances did not constitute lead roles in distinguished events with established reputations.

A speed skater and coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet any of three claimed criteria: awards lacked recognition evidence, contributions of major significance showed only local team impact, and the coaching role lacked documentation of critical importance.

A respiratory medicine researcher filed I-140 for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but awards and original contributions claims failed. AAO found prospective language in reference letters insufficient and ruled he failed to meet three criteria minimum.

Animation designer sought O-1A extraordinary ability classification for nonimmigrant employment extension. Petitioner claimed significant awards and alternative criteria but AAO found awards insufficiently documented and lacked national/international significance. Insufficient documentation of distinguished productions or other required criteria. Appeal dismissed.

A real estate analyst and researcher met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO rejected original contributions of major significance, finding petitioner's influence confined to China rather than broader field impact. With only two criteria met, appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence of top-tier extraordinary ability.

An engineering manager in the brewing industry sought extraordinary ability classification. Although meeting the leading role criterion, he satisfied only two of three required criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal due to insufficient salary justification and lack of major contributions to the field.

An electrical engineer in sciences claimed seven criteria, two met (judging, scholarly articles). Awards rejected (scholarship for projects, not excellence); published material rejected (not major media); original contributions, leading role rejected (lacking specifics, impact, organizational reputation). Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineer in petroleum industry claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria including original contributions, scholarly articles, high salary, and commercial success. Director found two criteria met; AAO affirmed only judging and leading role criteria. Rejected original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary for insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.

Sustainable agriculture researcher claiming extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to meet original contributions criterion. Citation record and expert letters did not establish major significance. Appeal dismissed because only two of three required initial criteria were satisfied.

Table tennis player sought extraordinary ability classification in athletics. Met only one criterion and failed to establish three minimum criteria required. Record lacked sufficient documentary evidence of national or international recognition, original contributions, or leadership role.

A filmmaker and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed to meet three criteria: published material, original contributions, and exhibitions. The AAO found published material and exhibitions met but rejected original contributions as lacking demonstration of major significance. The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish the required sustained national or international acclaim.

A disc jockey and music producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met two of ten criteria: membership and judging. Awards lacked national recognition, original contributions showed no major field impact, and leadership roles were insufficiently documented. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to meet three-criterion minimum.

Technology entrepreneur claimed extraordinary ability in business. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met (leading role, high salary) but rejected published material for translation deficiencies and original contributions for lack of major field impact. Appeal dismissed for insufficient criteria.

A weightlifter claiming extraordinary ability in athletics satisfied only the awards criterion. The AAO rejected membership, judging, published material, and original contributions claims, finding the petitioner met only two of three required criteria and lacked the sustained international acclaim needed.

Doctoral researcher in biomedical sciences claiming extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Petitioner appealed claiming original contributions of major significance. AAO dismissed, finding prospective impact and limited citations insufficient, and overall record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

Neuroscientist researcher self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Without three criteria threshold met, final merits not fully addressed. AAO concluded aggregate evidence does not demonstrate required expertise and acclaim.

Fashion designer and photographer sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria met. AAO found only two met (exhibitions and critical role), insufficient for threshold. Final merits not addressed as initial evidence requirement failed. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification. AAO found he met only two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. The original contributions criterion was rejected because citation counts and reference letters did not demonstrate major significance to the overall field. Appeal dismissed.

Blockchain solution architect seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner met only high salary criterion but failed to satisfy three minimum criteria: published material lacked required documentation, original contributions lacked evidence of field significance, and leadership role organizations lacked distinguished reputations. Appeal dismissed.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.

A medical business strategist recent graduate claimed five criteria. Awards were school-based and unrelated to claimed field; published articles were not about her; membership lacked required achievement standards; internship role lacked documented distinguished institution status. AAO found zero of three required criteria met and dismissed.